tv [untitled] January 14, 2013 4:30pm-5:00pm PST
notice in our ten-day look aheads several weeks before the closure and as we get closer to the event within seven to ten days breast we worked with media outlet as round the city to make sure that that information was desseminated. maria mentioned the mammoth tooth and the arcoko event opened. and that has been since morphing around the bay area. it started at mtc's headquarters and works to ac transit headquarters and now is the a the caltrans district 4 headquarters in oakland. and then of course, eventually it will become part of the transit center when that opens. one of our major objectives as always to generate as much positive media coverage as we can. we work very closely with our
pr consultants at singer associates in that regard. you see the accomplishments and milestones that generated coverage in 2012. we were able to get good storis in the chronicle, the examiner, the san francisco business times, the l.a.x. times, the sacramento bee, broadcast affiliates for nbc, cbs, ab, fox. and as i mentioned the mammoth tooth in particular did generate a lot of interest not just locally, but we got national coverage in the associated press, the boston globe, huffington press and the new york daily news n.2013 we'll of course be continuing our outreach activities and ongoing media outreach. some of the milestones that are upcoming that we'll have an opportunity to highlight include the construction of the third traffic bridge. the completion of the buttress work will be a significant milestone. and then the ongoing construction activity including especially as excavation moves east.
it's going to head towards some of the more residential areas surrounding our construction site. so we actually have a meeting scheduled for tonight with residents of 301 mission, the millennium building to talk about the completion of the buttress work and what to expect as excavation moves their way. >> i do have some questions. >> go ahead. >> i'm curious, what is the average attendance at these monthly meetings at tjpa? >> usually 25-30 people. >> that is actually a really great turnout. i know you visit hoas and neighborhood a[sthao-egsz/] request attendance and you see you did that throughout last year? >> yes, absolutely. >> i'm also curious, on average how many people use the 24-hour construction line? >> how many calls do we get? >> yes. >> usually when we get calls to the line it's a complaint.
>> right. >> and happily they have been quite low over the past year. maybe averaging 1-2 a month. you know, sometimes when we move into different phases of construction, the complaints will increase as we make that shift. so we're certainly going to be prepared as excavation moves east and gets closer to millennium in particular. it's just been a handful each month. >> the last data question, how many of people do you have on your look ahead email newsletter ? >> about 1400. >> okay. that is great. i just wanted to get a good sense because you are clearly doing good outreach and i wanted to make sure there was good penetration in the neighborhood for that. thank you. >> thank you and now sarah will report on funding.
>> so in 2012 we received a little over $77 million in grant allocations from ac transit, mtc, and, as well as fta. as the executive director mentioned we finalized the purchase and sale agreement for the tower site, which generates money for construction, of course. the details are included in the draft rtp and the transit center district plan was enacted, which is going to be a source of melaruse funding and developer fees for the project. we also had our real estate consultant and the concord group conduct a study to demonstrate the benefits to adjacent propertis from the project. and the study found that the project will add about $3. 7 billion in value to the real estate development within a three quarter mile radius around the transit center. this slideshows just the detail
of the new source funding plan that is currently in the draft rtp and that would be approved later on this year in 2013. and in 2013, we currently have pending grant applications totaling $60 million. the security ibonds are state security funds that ac transit is allocating to us that we're using for security aspects of the design. later in the agenda we'll be asking you to approve an ipr or another allocation of mtc bridge tolls for the structural steel package and we have passed the first-round and in the second round of the one bay area grant program for $10 million application for a pedestrian and bike aspects of the design of the transit center. >> great. now so next -- this time next year january, 2014, the bse package, all but the reeses will be complete, the tetchry
bridge will be done. the construction trustle will be done and below grade structure package zones 1 and 3 will be done and concourse slab in zone 1 will be complete. to the right you can see a picture of what things will look at the site january, 2014. so that concludes my program status update. thank you. >> thank you. >> now i would like to ask brian dykes to give the board an update on the bus ramp design. this presentation was given to ac transit recently as well. >> good morning, directors. the bus ramp is an elevated bridge plus some construction at grade as we come to the hill to take the buss from the west approach structure through the
terminal. it's a two-way traffic buses only. they approach from the south towards the terminal. and there is a success just before we get to it, where there is a return loop ramp, and a control station to make certain that the only people that get into this terminal are buses and have a way of diverting errant motorists. after you get past that lights, there are some actual lights there, so you can return people. we also, since these are all professional drivers will actually go from right-hand to left-hand drive and make a clockwise turn, so that the buses pull straight into their bays and it's far more
efficient for people getting off. on the way out, the reverse happens. the buses are now switching back to get on the right-hand side to approach the bay bridge or to go to storage in the middle of the day. the end nearest the bay bridge approach, the off-ramp is, in fact, a widening one. we have done the complete design and gone through with caltrans engineers, so it's a bus-only ramp on the left side. and at the lower levels, we have the option where we're coming back onto the lower level of the bay bridge to go in two different directions. so that we have a ramp coming up close to just before the
esex street ramp going back to oakland. or we're going at-grade back to storage. there is acrossover there with a set of lights below the bay bridge. where traffic coming in the other direction can ramp down and buses can be fed in coming from the west. the bulk of the work on this project is, in fact, elevated ramp. to the far left of here, there is a single-is span over harrison street. there is an embankment reinforced walls and then the main viaduct is a combination of prestress concrete, bridges for several spans and then the highlighted cable bridge, because there is only one opportunity to get a support in between the underground structure for the
terminal and howard street. and so this is a special design. the final 100% plans are actually on my desk. i got its a christmas present and we're all reviewing and doing a final cost estimate at this time. because the cable state bridge has two spans of about 120' each in either direction of the tower, there is plenty of space there now for park and landscaping. it adds to the fact instead of just an married ordinary bridge we have something special coming into a special terminal the lighting on the approach viaduct is a series of short standards of lamps that shine directly to the road
and doesn't interfere with the local residents. when we get to the cable street bridge, we actually put the lighting in the barrier, as to light the road and separate architectural lighting formality tower rather than mixing poles with cables. we did look at the question of errant motorists and people that might deliberately try to drive in. the sign there is for buses only. so there are people that will miss that and there is a flashing message sign beyond that that says, "you need to take the right-hand lane for the loop, if you got on by mistake." there is a supervisor's booth for bus control and control of people.
and there are lights at that point. if somebody continues on the left, and does not take that right ramp to get off to the turn ramp, they will activate the barrier, which is like a big safety net. it's an antiram barrier and it will stop a truck, but it won't kill people. it swings backwards and forwards. it's a better design than the solid, big, spike ramp, if you can see it, at the federal reserve bank here. so the schedule status, i have got 100% plans and webcor and all are going through it. and caltrans is also reviewing all the plans and the bid set is is due to be issued late march of this year. and we hope to bring it to the
board for approval in august. if there are any questions? >> director metcalf? >> are the buses entering the station and the buses leaving, crossing each other, so they have to stop and wait for each other? >> there are set of lights controlled. >> because this counterclockwise intrinsic is so valuable? >> we have done a lot of studies and the timing is such that you can switch across there. >> bob, i think has more to add. >> actually, the clockwise movement and in combination with the left-hand running moves that cross traffic from the entrance of the station out to a point on the ramp, where we have a signalized crossover.
because it was the buses need to be clockwise run sog running so that it can drop off passengers and pick up passengers. if we didn't, it was because of that that we introduced the left-running ramp that avoids that crossover at that point where it causes a problem. >> okay. >> director reiskin. >> so i have one similar question. do we know kind of at peak future capacity how many vehicles per hour would be going through that interchange? and would this be a triggered signal that is triggered as a
bus approaches? >> yes. we're modeling on 2030 projections for ac transit of 120 bus and hour. so two buses a minute during the peak periods. and it is prioritized, so that in the morning, when the majority of the passengers are inbound, that it's inbound prioritized and that empty buses leaving the station would be held and would cue at the light. and the inbound buses would be prioritized. and the opposite in the evening, where the outbound buses, where the passengers are prioritized. and that keeps it all moving. >> and we have modeled that traffic for a sense of what sort of cuing is going to be happening? >> we have done that with a model and it was particularly important to caltrans that there not be a backup of inbound buss that would impact
the bay bridge or the fremont street off-ramp. so we have done that modeling and we could include that in a future presentation and animation of that modeling so you could see it. >> okay. could you go back to the first slide? i wanted to just understand what current -- do all of the current ramps stay? maybe it's the next slide. i'm sorry. >> no. as part of the demolition, all of these ramps have been removed. >> so all the ramps showing aside from the yellow are gone? [ inaudible ] this is the existing fremont street off-ramp that touches down at fremont street. this is the fremont street exit ramp, that ramp will stay and, in fact will be reconfigured. i will just show you really quickly. this portion of the fremont
street off-ramp will be straightened and brought up to fremont -- perpendicular to fremont. that is part of the development of block 8. this portion, this spur will be reconfigured to come straight to fremont street. this ramp here, which is part of the old bus ramp structures, and these ramps here have all been demolished, as well as these ramps coming in here. >> thank you. >> any other questions from board members? seeing none, thank you. >> i had a question on that earlier presentation. >> we can go back. >> i guess just one suggestion, if you hadn't contemplated it with the archaeological exhibit when it finishes at caltrans, city hall might be a good place to put it. >> we're looking on it for the
centennial. >> very good. we probably covered this in october when we had the informational presentation on the dbe goal setting, but i just noticed when i saw that one slide, pretty volatile in terms of goals and it went up to 25 and now i know it's established from watching the video last night at 8.3. the actuals have been up in the 20s. can you just explain why that volatility and remind us why we went from the 20s down to 8. >> ? >> because we were initially receiving funds through matt, we had a lot of dbe participation on your contracts. we weren't supposed to take that into consideration when we first established our program, because we didn't have a previous dbe program. we couldn't take previous history into consideration. so we did have a very low goal just based on availability
numbers in the database. i think it was 4% that first year and of course your participation was much higher. the goal did come down in the years where we were anticipating and did award the design contract, because that was such a large contract. and such a large percentage of the anticipated contracting activity. and wasn't anticipated and, in fact didn't have dbe participation advisory on that contract. so we saw the goal come down a little bit. now that we're into largely construction contracts the goal is a little bit higher and what we are seeing is that counting sbe participation, sbe participation does in my observation makes the dbe participation come down a little bit, but the sbe participation is much easier to get certified by the state or the city. and i know that fta is really pushing this element. but i do believe it's making
dbe participation come down, because the dbe certification is so much more cumbersome. that is just an anecdotal observation on my part. >> thank you. that seems like an odd requirement from the federal government that you can't take the very relevant past practice and apply it to the develop of your program, but so be it. just two questions on the earlier part of the presentation. one, i appreciate on the cost slide you included a note saying that in addition, to the 20 of reserve there is $75 million of contingency. i guess a couple of questions. in total, there is less than $100 million of contingency plus reserve for still $1.6 billion program. i'm wondering if like the reserve draw-down curve you have, is there a contingency draw-down curve we're working from? and what is the basis for us knowing if we have enough contingency and reserve
>> well, as you know, fta and fra have certain requirements for how much contingency and/or reserve you have to have and at some point in spring or before the summer of this year, i will be come back to the board on where we are with that; because as you know the economy is improving. so we need to be prudent and look ahead. and i'll be looking at potentially increase of the contingencies and reserves. >> okay. because i noticed also in the report that we received last night, the monthly program report. that our expenditures to-date are less than anticipated, but we have drawn-down the reserves greater and we're under that draw -down curve. do we know what is behind that combination of factors? >> is that something that you can respond to?
>> i don't have that report in front of me, but jim helps prepare it. so he will be able to speak to it in more detail. >> directors i'm with the program management team and take care of the budget and scheduling stuff. the first curve you are talking about is the total expenditure curve and when we established that budget back in 2010, we had more aggressive schedule for let something of those packages than we have today. we're still holding the same end-date. so the expenditure has laged that original curve line. that is the explanation for that. for the program reserve account only, we have had a couple of major changes that we had to recognize. that kind of went off events, if you will, that i don't think will repeat. you also noticed that that curve is very erratic, if you will -- "volatile" isn't the right word, but it's nowhere
near a smooth line because it's event-driven. we had originally a buttress of 135 shafts. we had to increase it to over 200. that was a $25 million hit. it was a big deal. so that kind of event causes these jumps in that curve. so it's not kind of a phenomena that is really a function of time as much. so that is the best explanation i can give you for that. maria is right that we have to look at that whether there are sufficient reserves remaining to carry us to the end? >> and the reason why since 2010, that i think you just said that the packages have been coming out at a less aggressive schedule than we anticipated. what is the reason for that? and how do we catch up to meet the same
end-date? >> i didn't mean to leave you with the impression that the end-date was in jeopardy because of the expenditures. >> you were saying that we're keeping the same end-date, but with the packages coming out more slowly than anticipated, how do you end up with the same end-date? >> to answer your question directly because the design has taken longer than originally anticipated. in addition to, that the original design curve, when it was set up predicated on the old construction scheme of the top-down construction. i can't remember director reiskin if you were on the board when we switched from the top-down to the bottom-up scheme. but that created a situation where we had a lot more construction work to do in the below-grade and actually allowed in a sense and i probably shouldn't use the
word "design," but that it could take longer without affecting the new established end-day. does that make sense to you? >> okay. >> that curve has never actually changed from the original base expenditure. >> thank you. >> we do have questions from director metcalf. >> so whether you add all of those buttresses, going up to more than 200 and a $25 million overexpense compared to what you budgeted. is that out of the $75 million contingency? >> let me talk about that. by the way, if we need to, i don't have it on a slide, but we can have a more detailed report to provide to the board in terms of things that have occurred that cause changes in costs. and to tap into the program accounts. >> that would be great. >> so question do that for a
future meeting, certainly. the $75 million, let me expound on contingencies for a minute, if i could take the board's time. there are four buckets of different types of contingency items. the most prominently displayed is the reserve account that director reiskin said is around $25 million today. that is down from 45 when we established the budget. that is intended for things that change the scope of the project. buttress increase was certainly that kind of event that would tap into that. the second type that today is around $32 or $33 million is construction contingency. the intent of that is a bucket to take care of construction change orders. the bse contractor has run into certain conditions as part of the excavating process that were not easily anticipated
when he bid the job. so he had a number of change orders occur and we have that bucket to address things that occur in the construction process, like that. field-condition issues that will result in change orders. there is another bucket that is lincoln financial almost the same magnitude. it's $32 million. the csgm that has the kinds of situations, there are four of them actually. $16 million will be cost to the project one way or another. it's either going to be in webcor's pocket as an incentive or spent for a situation that would meet one of the four
conditions in the contract. the last bucket, which today is pretty small is design contingency. i am covering these using reverse order in a sense. as we are designing and building the project, kind of fast-track basis, where you have started construction before the design is totally complete. when you do an estimate, the estimators have to recognize that they don't have the scope fully defined in drawings in front of them to fully develop the estimate. so they will put a contingency on top of what they see on the drawings as part of developing an estimated cost. as you complete the design, you take that contingency down to eventually zero. because you don't need to have that contingency account as the design is fully complete. today it's only about $8 million left because the design is in a relatively high state of completion. so those are the buckets that make up that $75 million that is on the
footnote of that slight and the program reserve which is highlighted as a separate line. >> okay. maybe this needs to be a future discussion, but are you saying you are feeling confident that enough contingency is there more or less? >> i think what i said earlier that we're going to be coming back and probably looking for month, because it's the prudent thick to do with the economy improving. i think every project in the country is going to be looking at this. because things are getting better. there is a lot more work out there and the price of materials are starting to go up. so it's prudent for all projects to look at higher contingency reserves. >> okay. i have one more question. in your report, you referenced that you had completed or just about to complete the risk assessment and then the